In today’s modern world, the basic human rights containing freedom of speech and
belief are secured through the near history of Germany, inversely. The most
important gain of the years, 1930s to 1945, within which millions of people were
killed only because of their race, religious beliefs, culture or life style, was the
legal and administrative precautions which went beyond the borders of states and
gained an international guarantee. Moreover, Germany in which intolerance against
races, cultures and lifestyles has been experienced at the highest level, even
thorough the huge pressure and supervision exerted upon itself, began its process
of breaking free from its negative image as one of the liberal democracies which
functions very well. But the concerns about “discrimination” and “expansion
policies” of Germany which actualized not only an economic miracle but also a
political one, never seemed to disappear. Even the unification request of two
German states after the collapse of Berlin Wall (1989) which was the symbol of the
Cold War and Germany being under occupation, was attempted to be slowed down.
Many Western countries, especially United Kingdom, thought that a strong and
unified Germany also meant that a “dangerous” Germany. But after the
accelarated processes, with the help of fiscal power of West Germany, two German
states were unified under many international enrollments. Questions at that
moment were “Could Germany be agressive again?” and “Will the German society
go back to the intolarent and discriminating mentality of 1930s?”. Those questions
were vital to the immagrants whose majority was consisted by Turks. Not after a
very long time and nationalist acts which would have proven concerns right started
to take place not only in newspapers-magazines, at stages but also on the streets.
On 29 May 1993, five Turkish citizens were the saddest symbols of grave incident as
a result of racist attack to the house in which Genç family lived in Solingen. The
attacks which increased in frequency and severity after the unification caused
almost 100 people who were mostly immagrants and injury of thousands of others.
Only common point of these attack was the intolerance towards the dissimilar,
hostility towards the “foreigners” who had been working in Germany for over
20years and discrimination. But the most painful of all was the the structure of
these attacks which were beyond the potential of extremist racist-nationalist
groups. The expansion of ideological grounds was as dangerous as the physical
attacks towards Turks. Especially after 1990, German conservatives , conciously or
unconciously, made statements which could be useful for the extremist racist
groups. The unemployment crisis German people were going through and pointing
fingers to foreign workers as the reason of unemployment raised the acceptability
of racist-discriminating-populist discourses and social grounds for the attacks.
Moreover, utilization of this attitude was adopted by many politicians as the
easiest campaigning method. This was expressed in citizenship policy, about the
immigrant regulations and restrictions and sometimes in policies about Turkey and
sometimes in the context of Turkey-EU relations. But there was one thing clear:
German politicians, notably conservatives, could not break free from the discourse,
activities and applications which were reminiscent of 1930s, after 1990, this
attitude became even more radical.
Test of Conscience: Neither the First Nor the Last?
“Adherence test to the Constitution” (Interview Guide) which came into force on 1
January 2006, very successful designation for this is “Test of Conscience”, could be
seen as the peak of discrimination policy which started ascending after 2000 and
was almost legitimized with the New York attacks on 11 September 2001. On the
road to the Test of Conscience, “double citizenship to the foreign people in
Germany” and “Leitkultur” issues have to be addressed. As known, Germany was
ruled by the citizenship law which was legislated in 1913 and constructed a bloodoriented
citizenship. Aside from the oddness of the fact that a law legislated in
1913 has still been in force until 2000 in a country like Germany which is virtually
an immigrant country, it was very concerning that double citizenship concept was
discussed in a very emotional and discriminating fashion in the discussions
regarding a change in the law. Even though there were more than three million
people with double citizenship and many Germans became the citizens of the
country they were living in, conserving their German citizenship, German
politicians refused the double citizenship of Turkish people with the exaggerated
logic in case Germany and Turkey would go to war, Turkish citizens would take
Turkey’s side. The Prime Minister of Essen, Koch caused SPD-Greens, who took
power with the promise of double citizenship, to step down with a signature
campaign against double citizenship in 1998. German conservatives both turned
Turks a potential targets by saying that Turks cannot be integrated into the EU and
defining the integration as assimilation. Finally, the “new” citizenship law, with a
certain condition that foreign people who wants German citizenship must wihdraw
from their citizenship for good, came into force.
Besides the disappointment foreign people in Germany, Pro. Bassam Tibi who
defined himself as a “totally integrated German with Syrian roots” initiated a
discussion of “Leitkultur” (High Culture). High Culture, stipulated the condition
that foreigners living in Germany should adopt German culture as the sovereignhigh
culture. Besides the oddness of the fact that this imperialist and
assimilationist approach was suggested by a Syrian, nobody seemed to care about
the remarks that this kind of approach would sharpen the discriminations instead of
contributing to the integration and lighten the conflicts and create “paralell
societies”.
In discusions about the Citizenship Law, Double Citizenship, LeitKultur etc., near
history of Germany which was associated with “the intolerance against the
different” came up. The terrorist attacks which took place 11 September 2001 in
the U.S. served as the ideal means for the malignant conservatives in order to
leave the tolerance against the different aside. Islam which was defined as
poverty, uncivilized, ignorance had now been in the process of association with
terrorism. It became a lot more difficult to live in the Western socities with a
Muslim identity. It even was even enough to have an ID saying Muslim on it or not
to eat pork for someone to be recognized as a threat, let alone to pray or have
beard. These dramatic developments especially hurt Turkish community in
Germany which already had a bad record about the intolerance.
“Test of Conscience”: “Test Paper of Discrimination”
According to the blood basis, the citizenship is defined as the legal-political
relationship between the individual and the state through birth or fulfillment of
legal conditions. The institutions of the state accepting the individual as a citizen,
decide in what circumstances it will admit that individual as a citizen. But the
conditions here are only administrative, legal, medical etc. Beyond these, it is out
of question for the state to consider the emotions, world view while accepting
somebody’s application to citizenship. It is even more unacceptable if citizenship
status has dfferent criteria based on racial or religious background. People from 57
countries, including Turkey and Albania, who live in Baden-Würtemberg and want
to be German citizens, applied for citizenship. The Adherence Test to the
Constitution which Muslim applicants have to take and answer 30 questions in,
almost evaginates the principles mentioned above and is prepared on the basis of
discrimination. Without a doubt, one can argue that this test is an interrogation of
conscience due to the content of the questions and the audience it addressed. How
effectively this test will serve its purpose is a secondary issue and it also does not
hinder the discrimination. Honest responds to the questions is a request
emphasized frequently during the test and the applicants are asked to sign each
answer and in case of different behavior of the applicant than stated in the answer
sheet, the citizenship can be cancelled and this could happen even years after
granting the citizenship to the applicant.
Why Such a Test?
Now let us take a look at the question “Why such a test?” from the eyes of people
who prepared the test and the ones supporting it. The common thinking is
problems experienced during integration. German offices (who for some reason are
occupied by conservative politicians having agendas about the elections!) say that
they are trying to maintain integration and the immigrants are literally showing
resistance. For instance, Günther H. Oettinger, the Prime Minister of Baden
Wüttenberg and the creator of this test, and the Minister of Internal Affairs
Heribert Rech say “Those who want to be German citizens must acknowledge our
basic values and they have to do it in a convincing fashion. Because we do not wish
that “paralel societies” are formed”. Rech also says, “with this test, we try to
understand to what level applicants for citizenship internalized the Federal
Republic of Germany and values of its constitution”. They show two researches as
the reasons leading to the formation of such questions: According to the survey
made by Islam-Archiv, %21 of Muslims in Germany think German Constitution does
not comply with the Ku’ran. This situation is seen as the reason for an additional
test for Muslim applicants. But we need to see that the basic mistake here lies
within the question. For example, let us ask German citizens “Do you think German
Constitution complies with the Bible?”, it will not be suprise to see that a similar
portion of German community would say no. Or we can also ask Turkish citizens
“Do you think Turkish Constitution complies with the Kuran?”… When the question
is wrong and purposeful, the result derived from this question will also be
meaningless. It is true that German Constitutin does not comply with Kuran, in fact
even a higher percentage can be expected. But saying this does not mean
unrecognizing the Constitution or a certain disobedience.
The second source of information for the test is the survey carried out in 2001 by
Turkey Surveys Center in which %47 of Turkish immigrants stated that “We, Turks,
should not lose our identities and become Germans”. German politicians,
emphasizing that %60 of people becoming the citizens in Germany is Muslim, “we
have to prevent the existence of paralel societies which live by their own value
systems”. We have to stress an important point here: Germans think citizenship of
Germany is not only a political-legal bond but also an conscientious one.
Citizenship is an important issue and of course an applicant is expected to fulfill
his/her obligations after becoming a citizen. But if “Mehmet” is expected to
become a German after he gains citizenship, that is not a likely transformation.
Mehmet will become “citizen of Germany” but he will not be “German”. Moreover,
when he defines himself as German, first objection to that will come from, as it
happens quite often these days, the people who see themselves as the real
Germans. On the other, if Mehmet is seen as citizen who needs to fulfill the
obligations of German citizenship and obtain political rights he is granted, the
problem will probably be solved. A Turk being “German citizen” and being
“German” are completely different notions and the latter could neither be
requested not be expected. Therefore nobody has the right to question the the
conscience of the people based on a statement that emphasizes loyalty of social
values. Loyalty to the Constitution and the other legislationscould be questioned
but place for this kind of interrogation should be prosecution not a test.
German politician instrumentalize “September 11” on these subjects frequently.
They claim that they try to prevent Muslim masses from working with international
radical Islamists and some people might take advantage of their citizenship while
trying to form some kind of threat. But how accurate is the connection between
the purpose and the means?
Different Objections to the Test of Conscience
Test of Conscience sparked a big debate in Germany, issue was even discussed in
the Parliament. Two basic lines within the side against the test attract attention in
the debates about the test. First of these, rejects this test because test attempts
no to understand whether candidates would be suitable in terms of their ability to
fulfill their responsibilities as a citizen, but to target their thoughts and beliefs.
This group includes, suprisingly, German Catholic Church Association President
Cardinal Lehmann and Greens and Left Wing. Lehmann, arguing that state cannot
apply a test on Muslims because it will make them feel untrusted, says the test
must be abolished. The question asked by Mechthild Rawert from SPD “There are
also German people who want to convert to Islam, are we going to cancel their
citizenship too?” is very useful as it displays the basic logical mistake in this
activity. Spiller also notes that “recognition of free and democratic nature of the
state” principle is already present in the Constitution and pushing for additional set
of rules is not a serious approach.
The secondary part of the objections is not about the content but the quantity and
it is stated that the test is necessary to be applied but the questions are not well
prepared. In other words, objected is not the content but the problems with
functional issues. For instance, Maria Böhmer, the Minister of Immigration and
Integration, seems to talk about technical problems, not about a categorization
problem, when she says test of conscience does not serve the purpose, meaning
that “you cannot detect any terrorist or people against the regime, they will give
the necessary responses not they truly believe. Thus this test will only attract
people’s hatred and this will hurt the integration instead of helping it, questions
must be prepared more intelligently”. Some of the people objecting to the test
criticizes that only Muslims are subjected to the test but they do not seem to
notice human rights disaster. Actually the problem here is related to a serious
discrimination. It is not unusual to ask an applicant to have a job, to speak the
languance, to express his/her loyalty to the German Consitution or to go through
some medical tests. But the inspection of the applicant about beliefs and world
views and doing this only to a specific religious-cultural group is not only
discrimination but also a very humiliating act. More importantly, it is normal for
the thought and beliefs to transform over time. But in the test, candidates are
asked to give sincere answers and sign each answer, to know that in case of an
action contrary to the answers, citizenship can be ended. We will examine some of
the questions in the test below. But let us raise a question at this point: Can
somebody be called insincere when there is a positive or negative (it is actually not
possible to say what is positive or negative about this) change in his/her views
about homosexuality? Or as some people say, what about the devoted Catholics or
Christian Germans converting to Islam?
No matter what the purpose and doubts are, there is no connection of Test of
Conscience to modern society tolerant to beliefs-views, liberty of conscience and
struggle against discrimination. Citizenship application can only be refused for legal
reasons and these reasons cannot be supported with such a test. The questions are
discriminating, humiliating questions and they bring not the integration but the
discrimination and exclusion. The saddest of all is that this test is prepared in
Germany whose history is filled with the scenes of horror. Honestly, what we see in
this test is the cultural racism reminiscent of 1930s.
“Test of Conscience” in the Light of Questions
“Test of Conscience”, as a whole, is contrary to Human Rights and the integrations
with the prejudices which feed the racism and must be rejected when we look at
the basic principles of EU. But, when we look at the questions, the all of which can
be seen in the appendix, one by one, we see interesting dilemmas, logic errors and
“curiosities”. It seems that, people preparing and approvning the questions have no
interest in respecting different beliefs, thoughts and cultures. Only concern here is
to define a standard set of notions of a German citizen and to request the foreigner
to comply to these set of notions with their actions. Without exaggeration, the test
is capable of turning people from pure German race into suspects. Moreover, as C.
Roth says, if the test is to be applied, the Pope XVI. Benedikt (Ratzinger) is needed
to released from nationality due to his views about homosexuality. Test does not
try to measure the level of respect to the principles of democratic-libertarian
society but tries to make sure the set of rules defined by some people is imposed to
everyone.
Unbearable Charm of Homosexuality?
The situation we expressed is clearly demonstrates itself in the issues of
homosexuality, no 29 and no 30 questions are as follows:
Question: 29) What would be your reaction if your adolescent son reveals that he is
homosexual and wants to live with another man?
Question 30) It is known that some of the politicans in Germany are homosexuals. What
do you think about homosexuals working in public services in Germany?
It is understood that, intention of these questions is to see the thoughts of
candidates about homosexual life style which has become a very normal thing in
Western culture. In many countries of Europe, homosexual couples are under the
protection of law and they can now make use of legal and fiscal advantages of
state. In modern Europe, it is not shocking for homosexuals to be at the high
positions of the state. But this situation is a matter of social tolerance; the respect
towars gay people and their choices could be built as a result of long and painful
process. It should be noted that in Nazi Germany, homosexuals were one of the
groups which must be “eliminated” from the society like Jewish people. Germany,
captive of its own history, did not see anything wrong with making homosexuality
one of the most important issues of the test. Ironic part here is that people
preparing the test come from Christian Democrat Party. It is a tragicomic scene
that while Catholic Church, the Pope and all the Vatican, objects the
internalization of homosexuality and defines it as a sin, German Christian
Democrats wants to measure the tolarance of Muslim people about homosexuality.
But the questions about homosexuality are really bizarre in the way they manifest
the their mentality. The questions imply not only being tolerant towards
homosexuality, almost internalizing, never questioning children’ choice and
supporting them if necessary. It almost sounds like “a precondition of German
citizenship is never to object your son’s choice and moreover to encourage him!”.
It is impossible to see reason here. Homosexuality is still a phenomenon that
people have not internalized (which could be very apparent in Catholicity). It is a
right for everyone to reject the choice of his/her son as much as to accept it.
Moreover, former is more “legitimate”, more “natural”. A Muslim German citizen
could vote Christian Democrats because of their approach towards homosexuality,
also may not vote Greens only for this reason. Does this mean his citizenship is in
danger? Or when somebody says “it does not make me entirely happy to see
homosexual people working in public services”, will he fail the test of citizenship?
“Being not happy” is an expression of dislike but it is completely a different story
when somebody says “homosexuals should not be allowed to work in the public
services”. Measuring the tendency of people from specific race, beliefs etc.
towards radical groups is, with the most gentle words, is a malicious comedy
performed in a amateurish fashion.
28th question of the test is also interesting, questions is as follows:
28) Your daughter applies for a job but her application is rejected. Later, you find out that an African
negro from Somali took the job. How would you react to such a situation?
We believe, it is the level of racism test is trying to figure out. But the construction
of the questions and use of words like “negro” leads us to believe that question
reflects the tendencies of people preparing the test rather than measuring the
level of racism of the candidates. It does not count as a prediction to say that
answers of German people to this kind of question does not give us a hopeful
picture. It could even be said that Turks are far more tolerant in this issue. But in
order to see if this is true, shouldn’t we ask the same questions to the people form
German race?!
The West Really Surrendered To September 11 This Easily?
The Test of Conscience, which came in force in Baden Wütenberg, is unfortunately
neither the first nor the last activity in this context. In the Citizenship Law came
into force in 2000, there are points which pave the way for such a test. It is even
more grave that a group which does terrorist actions in the name of Islam can turn
all the values related to human rights, democracy, freed and liberty of beliefs
upside down. It is both a tragic situation and also a reward to the radical groups to
leave all the values which took centuries and blood. After the collapse of dual
system of Cold War, there were many dark scenarios especially S.Huntington’s
“Clash of Civilization”. September 11 was a milestone for these ideas and was
imposed as the reason for the activities initiated. Muslims, who are already not
welcomed sincerely in Western societies and are subjected to discrimination,
started to be seen as potential threats. It is unfortunately very likely for us to see
the more bizarre versions of the developments we are witnessing. The victims of
such developments are clearly Muslims (Turks in Germany). It will not be very easy
for Muslims to carry on with their lives in Europe which takes pride in its
multicultural structure and its values like human rights, democracy, freedom of
speech. But this problem will only be a problem of Muslims in the short term.
Assimilation and discriminating policies which could replace integration, living in
harmony and peace seem to be the major problems European socities will suffer
from. As seen in the test, Germany’s pressure towards “uniqueness” even though it
is a respected member of the EU whose first principle is “unity of diversity”, can
be noted as “a cautionary strategic diversion”, as put by Berlin Ambassador
M.A.İrtemçelik.
We have to admit that, test of conscience is not a suprising development after
looking to last 15 years. It will give us clues to observe the debates in Germany
over the position of Turkey in EU. It takes more than a simple explanation to
understand the refusal of Turkey which is an important defensive base of Europe
and has always been in close contact with Europe through music, sports, tourism
etc., and justifying this on the assumption that Turkey is “different”. Some of the
arguments put forth by those who do not want Turkey in EU are reasonable and
rational. But the major issue of this is, even though it is not always expressed
clearly, the “different religious-cultural” values of Turkey. It would not be shocking
to see the slogans of conservative parties in Germany “EU Without Turkey” turning
into “EU Without Turks”. That is because these slogans serve as an instrument to
spread the mentality that attack towards human rights is legitimate.
What About The Immigrants?
Without a doubt, population movements are one of the most important problems of
the century. People move continously for a better standard of living and this
process is also accelarated by the developments in technology. Those who move
from poor, non-peaceful places usually choose to immigrate to rich countries. But
this movement has become a very complex issue. For instance, this year, more
people have moved out Germany than those who has moved in. But if we put all
this aside, it is a fact that people coming to a new country for finding work and life
have problems with adaptation. When it comes to integration, owner of the home
is as much responsible as the guest. Movement of Turkish people to Germany
starting in 1960s and continuing until mid-70s is one of the most interesting
examples of population movement. Neither Germany nor the newcomers could hae
guessed that people coming here would settle in Germany. This dramatic scene,
with the mentality “we asked for workers, they sent us people”, kind of brought a
sense of temporality and first and second generations did not even try to learn the
languance. We cannot really say Germany lent a hand about the integration to
those uneducated people coming from the poorest places of Turkey who “remained
packed”. But the mistakes made in the anticipation of this movement have been
very costly in 1980s and 90s.
Today in Germany, 2,5 million Turks, half million German citizens, live in Germany.
Turks are a reality of Germany and they are not just workers but also politicians,
diplomats and artists. Thousands of Turkish students are being educated in the
universities of Germany. Actually this is a sign of integration for Turkish people to
achieve this in a society which is not very easy for Turks to live in. But serious
issues still exist. The obstacles against integration created by the legal and
administrative regulations (ex. Double citizenship) and incompatibility between
communities contribute to the existance of the problems. We also have to admit
that Turkish people demonstrate, not as an intentional action refusing integration,
some kind of inertia against integration. It is true that some of the social diversions
like “murder of chastity” has been transferred to Germany. It is normal for
Germany, who has question marks about the harmonious living, to react about
these issues. There is no denying the fact that some of Turkish people, even if it’s
a small portion of the society, lack the basic understanding of democracy, freedom
of belief and conscience and it is a duty for both German and Turkish state to solve
this problem. The way to accomplish this is being genuine, not discriminating or
humiliating and make an effort to complete integration.
One of the things that Turkish people lack is practice to defend their rights through
non-govermental organization and to take action. Even though we see a willing
group of people, it has to be known that completion of this process will take time.
The reactions against the Test of Conscience also displayed the weakness of civil
action among Turks.

Conclusion
Application of this test to Muslim immigrants (this could be read as “Turks” in the
context of Germany) is related to a meaningless desire to make people “German”
not “German citizen”. It is a legitimate concern to ask what would be the picture
drawn by the responses of German people. Questions asked in the test are the kind
of questions concerning the private space (beliefs, thoughts etc) of the candidate,
rather than the ones about structure of Germany and EU. People preparing these
questions seem to behave as if they have the authority over the “right”. But in this
very country in which millions of people were killed because of their races, beliefs
and other differences, racist attacks still continue while the memory of near
history is still present. Almost hundred people have been killed even in the last
decade. People behind this test should face their conscience and realize they are
not the ones to determine the one and only right knowledge and belief. “Test of
Conscience” is a dangerous fantasy which must be rejected without any doubts and
is also a threat to the society since it might pave the way for the formation
“paralel societies”. What could be more racist than recognizing a specific religious
group as a threat from the start and humiliating and discriminating them?

APPENDIX:
Baden Württemberg Eyaleti’nde 1 Ocak 2006’dan itibaren İslam Ülkelerinden gelen (ki bunların % 90’ı
Türklerden müteşekkildir) vatandaşlık adaylarına “Mülakat Kılavuzu” ya da “Anaysaya Bağlılık Sınavı”nda
sorulan sorular aşağıdadır. Aday soruları cevaplayıp imzalamak zorundadır. Adayın verdiği cevaplara
aykırı bir durumu tesbit edildiğinde, aradan yıllar dahi geçmiş olsa, vatandaşlığı geri alınacaktır.
Questions:
1) The Constitution of Republic of Germany is based on democratic, liberitarian structure. It has the
fundamental law which has the same values with other European Union members. This also includes
the protection of individual’s dignity and monopoly of state on use of physical power. In other words,
within the borders of Republic of Germany, no one but the state could exercise, apart from self
defense, power on someone else. The state, on the other hand, can use power relying on its right
stated in law. For instance to maintain the man-woman equality. Is this basic principle compatible with
your beliefs?
2) What do you think about the following statements? “Democracy is the worst form of government”
Humanity has never suffered from anything more than democracy. In order for people to get rid of
democracy, they first have to understand democracy will do no good to them“.
3) Sometimes in movies, in theaters and in books, beliefs of people from different religions can be
offended. What methods would you suggest to prevent such situations and what methods would not
you?
4) What do you think about criticism of a religion? Is this acceptable? Can you take criticism?
5) In Germany, political parties and associations against the Constitution can be shut down. Do you
support such a party even if it is closed? With what reasons?
6) “Woman must submit herself to her man and man has the right to beat her if she does not”, what do
you think about this statement?
7) Do you think it is an acceptable behavior for a man to lock his wife and daughter to home in order to
prevent them from doing something “immoral”?
8) In Germany, in case of use of physical power between spouses, police have the right to interfere
and to keep the guilty person away from home. What do you think about this?
9) Do you perceive the equality of sexes, which was assured by the law, as a progression? What do
you think state should do when men object to this?
10) In Germany, everyone have the right to work at the positions if they have the proper education?
What do you think about this? Do you think some jobs should only be done by men and women? If so,
which jobs should be done by who and why?
11) What do you think is the job a woman should never do? Is there any sphere of business that the
existance of a female boss makes you uncomfortable?
12) In Germany, everybody decides themselves whether they will be examined by a male or female
doctor. In some situations, there is no choice. For example, emergency cases or shift changes in
hospitals. In a similar situation, do you accept being examined by a doctor from the opposite sex?
13) We come across cases where families do not let their their adolescent daughters work in the
places or marry the men they choose. What is your approach about this? What would be your reaction
if your daughter marries somebody from a different faith or works in field of business you do not want
her to work?
14) What do you think about families marrying their children through coercion? Do you think such
marriages comply with individual’s dignity?
15) In Germany, swimming and sports are a part of education. Do you approve your daughter’s
participation in these lessons? If not, why?
16) What do you think about your children going on a school trip?
17) Your adolescent daughter/wife wants to dress up the way other women do. Do you try to stop this?
If so, how?
18) For female candidates: an kadınlar için soru: Your daughter wants to dress up the way other
German girls do but your husband is against this. What would you do?
19) If your daughter/sister tells you she was sexually harrassed, what would you do as a
father/mother/brother/sister?
20) If your son or brother tells you that he was offended, what would you do as a
father/mother/brother/sister?
21) Do you think the Constitution gives the citizen the right to change his/her faith or live freely with
his/her lifestyle? What do you think about people being punished after change of faith? (For example
rejecting the person as a son/daughter)
22) You found out that a friend or a neighbor of yours or someone from your close environment is
involved in terrorist action or planning a terrorist action. What would you do? What would be your
reaction?
23) You know about 11 September and 11 March 2004 Madrid incidents. Do you think people doing
these are terrorists or freedom fighters? Explain your answer.
24) In the newspaper, we see people who killed their daughters/vives as a punishment for their
“immoral actions”, say that they did what they did for protecting the pride of the family. How do you
approach to this?
25) What do you think about a man married to two women?
26) What do you think about a man who is already married in Germany and goes back to his
homeland and marries another woman?
27) Some people hold Jewish people responsible for the malignancies in the world and claim that it is
the Jewish people behind the terrorist attacks occured in 11 September 2001.What do you think about
these assumptions?
Dr. M.Murat Erdoğan/Feb. 2006